Presenter Information

Stojan KresovicFollow

Advisor Information

Jeremy Lipschultz

Location

MBSC 222

Presentation Type

Oral Presentation

Start Date

6-3-2020 10:30 AM

End Date

6-3-2020 11:45 AM

Abstract

Since the advent of the internet, motion picture studios and music labels have struggled to achieve a stranglehold when it comes to copyright. Now, we know what happens if you were to go to a local Walmart and steal a DVD or a CD off of the shelf; You end up getting in trouble and you may have to pay a fine. What, then happens when you do it through the confines of the internet? The Supreme Court itself has stated in Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises (1985), that copyright is the engine of free expression, although some describe it instead as an engine of corporate censorship. “For something to qualify for copyright it must be original, and it must be fixed in a tangible medium” (Lipschultz, 2019, p. 233). According to Lisby the First Amendment and intellectual property are two sides of the same coin, their legal functions work to move forward and balance the purposes of each other (Lisby, 2019, p.233). The First Amendment protects our freedoms of speech, but it is the intellectual property rights granted to us in the constitution that allows us to profit from the benefits that the First Amendment may entail such as the ability to express any creative abilities one may have (Lisby, 2019, p.233). So, for someone like Joe Rogan, the First Amendment allows him to hold a podcast online and say whatever he wants pretty much but the constitution is what affords him the ability to profit from it. This paper will serve to show the difficulties of enforcing copyright laws in a time in history where more people than ever before have access to copyrighted materials.

COinS
 
Mar 6th, 10:30 AM Mar 6th, 11:45 AM

Copyright law and the Media and Filesharing An Analysis of the First Amendment and Copyright and its impact on Entertainment and Music

MBSC 222

Since the advent of the internet, motion picture studios and music labels have struggled to achieve a stranglehold when it comes to copyright. Now, we know what happens if you were to go to a local Walmart and steal a DVD or a CD off of the shelf; You end up getting in trouble and you may have to pay a fine. What, then happens when you do it through the confines of the internet? The Supreme Court itself has stated in Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises (1985), that copyright is the engine of free expression, although some describe it instead as an engine of corporate censorship. “For something to qualify for copyright it must be original, and it must be fixed in a tangible medium” (Lipschultz, 2019, p. 233). According to Lisby the First Amendment and intellectual property are two sides of the same coin, their legal functions work to move forward and balance the purposes of each other (Lisby, 2019, p.233). The First Amendment protects our freedoms of speech, but it is the intellectual property rights granted to us in the constitution that allows us to profit from the benefits that the First Amendment may entail such as the ability to express any creative abilities one may have (Lisby, 2019, p.233). So, for someone like Joe Rogan, the First Amendment allows him to hold a podcast online and say whatever he wants pretty much but the constitution is what affords him the ability to profit from it. This paper will serve to show the difficulties of enforcing copyright laws in a time in history where more people than ever before have access to copyrighted materials.